Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Council House During Separation

  • 24-10-2024 4:29am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13


    My husband and I got a council house 2 years ago last May. While I was was visiting my family abroad (I'm here on a Stamp 4 because I married an Irishman) during a phone call with him he told me he wanted a divorce. We have no children as we are older. I've decided to stay with my family abroad. We live in Wexford. He said he'd have to move because the house was rented to us as a couple. Both of our names are on the tenancy. Does this sound right to you? I thought he'd be the sole tenant now.



Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 305 ✭✭xyz13


    The audacity...

    “Brevity is the soul of wit."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 563 ✭✭✭CliffHangeroner


    He's telling you a lie. He is entitled to the house.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,792 ✭✭✭blackbox


    You might be entitled to a house each.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,151 ✭✭✭Baybay


    If you’re sure your marriage is over, I think I’d contact the council to see if you’ve any responsibilities that would need to be dealt with in this situation. Then move on with your life abroad. What happens him or the house would surely be between him & the council.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭RichardAnd




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,332 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    You need to contact the council in your own right, to have your name removed from the tenancy - because he has kicked you out. Until it's removed, you remain liable for paying half of the rent.

    What happens to him is between him and the council. In many places, they'd let him stay as the only person on the tenancy agreement (eg it's what would happen if you died). But if they have a 1-bed to offer him, they may ask him to move so that the 2-bed can go to someone who needs it more.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭XsApollo


    of course he can stay, they don’t kick people out of council houses, he will probably get cheaper rent too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 563 ✭✭✭CliffHangeroner


    I can confirm this does happen but the council has no legal right to move him out even if it was a 3 bedroom house he could stay there until the day he dies as long as the rent is paid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13 Sweetpea68


    But doesn't each county have its own rules?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 563 ✭✭✭CliffHangeroner


    Possibly but in DL Rathdown it is 100% the case. I know as I've a family member is exactly that position.

    Actually apologies I just see the OP is in Wexford maybe different rules there apply.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,045 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    Of course they have the right. The LA owns the property, not the tenant.

    My previous next door neighbour was moved last christmas, from a two-bed to a one-bed, because her husband had died. She is 72 years old.

    She was informed she had no choice. The Council (SDCC) visited her six weeks after his death to inform her of this, and she was 8 months waiting after that for the one-bed to come up. (Which ironically, turned out to be much bigger than the two-bed she lived in with her husband, but was deemed more suitable for her needs because it only had one bedroom).

    My brother was also downsized from our family home to a one-bed, (as a single man) after our mother died. Also SDCC.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 341 ✭✭flyer_query


    Handy scheme, find a foreigner to co-apply for the council house then end the relationship and because its a foreigner he will likely not have to see her again and gets to keep a house he wouldn't have gotten if he applied on his own.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,045 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    OP, he will have to inform the council that you have moved out, as they will continue to look for your details of your income for rent assessment purposes

    He can apply to become sole tenant, and he won't lose his right to a tenancy, but in all likelihood, it will mean he will be put on the list to be allocated a smaller unit. Which could take months, or years. A lot of these are now being done via transfers from Council to AHBs like Tuath or Cluid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,332 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    They may own the property, but they are bound by some (archaic IMHO) laws about social housing being for life.

    They can make strongly worded suggestions, but in most cases they cannot force a move.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,551 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    The council has every right to move him out in the interests of estate management. There have been numerous court cases on the point. e.g. Dublin City Council v Fennel 2005.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,551 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    What archaic tenancy laws? The matter is governed by the Housing Act

    From DCC v Fennell:-

    Clause 26 of the tenancy agreement provided that the tenancy could be terminated at any time on the giving of four weeks notice by the tenant or the Corporation. To this end, a Notice to Quit could be served by the Corporation incorporating a demand for possession pursuant to s.62 (1) of the Housing Act, 1966.

    A decision to serve a notice to quit in respect of the premises was made on the 13th June, 2003, and a Notice to Quit dated 26th June, 2003, was served on the appellant on the 7th July, 2003. The Notice to Quit demanded delivery up of the premises on the 1st September, 2003, and further contained a statement of the respondent's intention to make an application under subs.(1) of s.62 of the Housing Act, 1966, in the event of the requirements of the demand not being complied with.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,045 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    As I said, he will retain his right to a tenancy, but not necessarily in the unit he is current allocated.

    OUAT people were allowed stay, but not anymore. I think the enforcement of this is going to become more and more common.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Who could have imagined that a scheme that gives people free houses would be abused.



Advertisement